Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
maybe this isn't exactly a list of total diversity, but rather of "racial balance" with no regard to specific nationalities (as in, it's a list of the balance of white to black to latino to asian). SF for example has pretty similar proportions of White, Asian and Latino residents (white is definitely higher, but not by too much when compared to many other metros), and it's only the black population that falls far behind in the Bay Area. By comparison many other cities will have only two, or even one racial group making up the majority. You also might notice that SF has a much higher percentage of mixed-race people than any of the other metros listed (approaching 3%, while all others are below 2% or even below 1%).
maybe this isn't exactly a list of total diversity, but rather of "racial balance" with no regard to specific nationalities (as in, it's a list of the balance of white to black to latino to asian). SF for example has pretty similar proportions of White, Asian and Latino residents (white is definitely higher, but not by too much when compared to many other metros), and it's only the black population that falls far behind in the Bay Area. By comparison many other cities will have only two, or even one racial group making up the majority. You also might notice that SF has a much higher percentage of mixed-race people than any of the other metros listed (approaching 3%, while all others are below 2% or even below 1%).
Then San Francisco must win. It's a contest, right?
Then San Francisco must win. It's a contest, right?
SF metro wins easily if you consider a high asian and mexican population as diversity. On the basis of nationalities from every corner of the world, then definitely not.
SF metro wins easily if you consider a high asian and mexican population as diversity. On the basis of nationalities from every corner of the world, then definitely not.
exactly...that distinction has to go to NYC and LA, if only because they are so large and have so many different people. SF would be up there too of course, in the top 5 i'm sure. Maybe even 3rd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NowInWI
Then San Francisco must win. It's a contest, right?
No, it's not a contest. The numbers are what they are.
Then San Francisco must win. It's a contest, right?
Yes it is and to suggest that San Francisco and Houston are slightly more diverse than New York is completely ignorant. I knew this would be an interesting thread.
I'm sorry, I was being snarky. I just can't take it seriously when people get all bent out of shape because their city might not be the "most diverse" city in the country. Then, we get to nitpicking about who's Latino and who's not, who's white rather than Russian, etc. It is what it is - if one city has a fraction of a percentage more diverse people than the next most diverse city, what does it matter? I think we all have too much time on our hands to spend a Saturday night arguing about something that is really fairly trivial, in the whole scheme of things.
Diversity is about more than just race. Ethnicity, religious faith, and other factors should be included too.
That's a very good point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
